Child Guidance Service
1
Summary of Incredible Years Parent Program – FY 2009
Classes conducted by Child Guidance staff of the Tulsa City‐
County Health Department
Amy Dedering, M.P.H.
Child Guidance Service
2
The Incredible Years Parent Program is a 12 to 16 week evidence‐based program for
parents of children 0 to 8 years of age. The focus of the program is strengthening positive
and nurturing parenting skills, as well as reducing challenging behaviors in children and
increasing their social and self‐control skills.
Classes were conducted by staff from the Child Guidance Clinic in the Tulsa City‐County
Health Department.
PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS
Response – 74 adult participants
Gender # % Relationship to Child # %
Female 55 74% Biological parents 65 88%
Male 19 26% Grandparents 4 5%
Race/Ethnicity Adoptive parents 2 3%
African American 2 3% Step‐parents 2 3%
American Indian 12 16% Parent's partner 1 1%
Hispanic 11 15% Child's Primary Caregiver
White 44 59% Yes 68 92%
Other 5 7% No 6 8%
County of Residence Months (in past year) child lived with participant
Creek 2 3% Twelve 55 81%
Rogers 11 15% Seven 2 3%
Tulsa 52 70% Five 2 3%
Wagoner 9 12% Two 2 3%
None 7 10%
Incredible Years Parent Program Classes
Class Location Class Time # Participants
Boston Avenue Church Fall 2009 10
Card Head Start Fall 2009 12
Card Head Start – Catoosa Spring 2010 14
Catholic Charities Spring 2010 15
Catholic Charities – Spanish class Spring 2010 5
NACT Head Start Fall 2009 11
Skelly Head Start Fall 2009 7
Child Guidance Service
3
Relationship Status # %
Married 44 63% Employment Status # %
Single 10 14% Working full time 18 28%
Separated 5 7% Working part time 13 20%
Living together 4 6% Not working by choice 10 15%
Divorced 4 6% Unable to work 10 15%
Widowed 3 4% Not working but job seeking 8 12%
Educational Level Student 3 5%
Completed 8th grade or less 4 6% Retired 2 3%
Completed 9th, 10th or 11th grade 8 12% In a recovery program 1 2%
High school graduate or GED 16 24%
Completed some college 15 23%
Technical or trade school graduate 12 18%
College graduate ‐ 2 year degree 2 3%
College graduate ‐ 4 year degree 7 11%
Post college graduate 2 3%
Response – 55 households
Household income # % Does child receive Medicaid? # %
Less than $10,000 12 24% Yes 24 44%
$10,001 ‐ $20,000 13 26% No 31 56%
$20,001 ‐ $30,000 9 18% Does child receive WIC?
$30,001 ‐ $40,000 10 20% Yes 35 64%
$40,001 ‐ $50,000 1 2% No 20 36%
$50,001 ‐ $60,000 4 8% Does family receive unemployment?
More than $60,001 1 2% Yes 5 9%
Does caregiver receive TANF? No 50 91%
Yes 2 4% Does family receive housing assistance?
No 53 96% Yes 10 18%
Does caregiver receive food stamps? No 45 82%
Yes 25 45% Does family receive energy assistance?
No 30 55% Yes 1 2%
Does caregiver receive job training assistance? No 54 98%
Yes 0 0% Does family qualify for free/reduced
No 55 100% school meals?
Does family receive social security? Yes 14 25%
Yes 4 7% No 41 75%
No 51 93%
Child Guidance Service
4
Response – 57 children that were the focus of adult participation
Age of child # % Does child have ADHD? # %
2 years or less 10 18% Yes 2 4%
3 years 14 25% No 39 87%
4 years 18 32% Maybe 4 9%
5 years 11 19% Does child have a language delay?
6 to 8 years 2 4% Yes 4 9%
9 years or older 2 4% No 39 87%
Gender of child Maybe 2 4%
Female 28 49% Does child have a learning problem?
Male 29 51% Yes 1 2%
Primary language spoken in household No 41 91%
English 47 82% Maybe 3 7%
Spanish 9 16% Does child have a physical handicap?
Amharic (Ethiopia) 1 2% Yes 0 0%
# of other children in household No 45 100%
No other children 16 30% Does child have a vision or hearing impairment?
1 other child 25 46% Yes 0 0%
2 other children 8 15% No 44 98%
3 other children 4 7% Maybe 1 2%
4 other children 1 2% Does child have an emotional/behavioral problem?
Does child take medications on a regular basis? Yes 6 13%
Yes 4 8% No 28 62%
No 45 92% Maybe 11 24%
RESULTS
Parents were asked to complete the Social Competence Scale for Parents (P‐COMP) and the
Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI‐SF) both before the first class and after the last class. These
were used to measure the effects of treatment.
The P‐COMP is a 12‐item measurement tool that the parent completes to assess a child’s pro‐social
behaviors, communication skills, and self control. Items on the scale state a behavior a child
may display in a social setting, and parents mark responses on how well the statement describes the
child. Responses are coded on a five point Likert scale (0‐Not at all, 1‐A little, 2‐Moderately well, 3‐
Child Guidance Service
5
Well, 4‐Very well). The P‐COMP contains a Pro‐social Communication Skills subscale and an
Emotional Regulation Skills subscale, as well as an overall scale.
The PSI‐SF takes 36 items from the 120 items on the original PSI. Parents are asked to rate
each item on a 5‐point Likert scale (5‐Strongly Agree, 4‐Agree, 3‐Not Sure, 2‐Disagree, and 1‐Strongly
Disagree) in order to assess their parenting stress. As well as an overall score, the PSI‐SF contains the
following subscales: Parental Distress, Parent‐Child Dysfunctional Interaction, and Difficult Child.
For both the P‐COMP and the PSI‐SF, each subscale and the total score were calculated as a
mean of responses. For the P‐COMP, an increase in the mean shows a positive effect, and for the PSI‐SF,
a decrease in the mean shows a positive effect. A paired t‐test of means with a p value of .05 was
calculated to determine statistical significance between pre and post scores. The following table
shows the means, t‐test value and p value for each subscale and the total scale.
P‐COMP – 33 Matched Pairs
Pre Test Mean Post Test Mean t‐test p value
Pro‐social/Communication
Skills
12.94 15.94 ‐3.584 .001
Emotional Regulation Skills 9.21 13.30 ‐5.803 .000
Total Score 22.15 29.24 ‐5.201 .000
PSI‐SF – 24 Matched Pairs
Pre Test Mean Post Test Mean t‐test p value
Parental Distress 29.08 24.71 2.519 .019
Parent‐Child Dysfunctional
Interaction
21.29 19.21 1.251 .224
Difficult Child 32.67 25.63 4.619 .000
Total Stress 83.04 69.54 3.173 .004
For the P‐COMP, all three scales had a statistically significant difference in pre and post
means, showing that after the Incredible Years Parent classes, parent’s believed their child had better
emotional regulation skills as well as pro‐social and communication skills. For the PSI‐SF, two of the
subscales and the total scale had a statistically significant difference in pre and post means, showing
that after the Incredible Years Parent classes, parents felt that their child was not as difficult, and that
their stress levels had decreased. Although there was not a statistically significant difference in
means for the Parent‐Child Dysfunctional Interaction, this may have been due parents feeling their
relationship with their child was a positive one before classes began.
Child Guidance Service
6
SATISFACTION
Satisfaction questionnaires were administered at the end of the Incredible Years Parent
Program. Responses were coded on a 7‐point Likert Scale, with 1 being the lowest and 7 being the
highest score. The table below shows the mean scores for class, parent type and an overall score.
The
Overall
Program
Difficulty of
Teaching
Format
Usefulness of
Teaching
Format
Difficulty of Specific
Parenting
Techniques
Usefulness of
Specific Parenting
Techniques
Boston Avenue
Church
6.2 6.1 5.6 5.8 6.1
CARD Head
Start
6.3 5.8 6.6 5.5 6.5
CARD Head
Start ‐ Catoosa
6.6 6.5 6.6 6.1 6.5
Catholic
Charities
6.2 5.3 5.9 5.6 5.7
Catholic
Charities ‐
Spanish class
6.3 5.3 6.6 4.9 6.1
NACT Head
Start
5.9 5.7 6.2 5.6 6
Skelly Head
Start
6.6 6.6 6.6 6.1 6.6
Moms 6.3 5.8 6.5 5.6 6.2
Dads 6.1 5.3 5.7 5.1 6.1
Grandparents 6.7 6.7 6.5 6.3 6.7
Overall Score 6.3 5.8 6.3 5.6 6.3
Selected Additional Comments from Satisfaction Surveys
1. What part of the program was most helpful to you?
Child led play (5)
Learning creative, descriptive praise (5)
The group discussion (4)
The whole program was helpful/All of it (4)
Time out (3)
How to ignore bad behavior (3)
Sharing experiences with other parents (2)
Having a book to go along with the program (2)
Child Guidance Service
7
The videos and charts
Learning how to make play more developmental for the child
The teachers actually listen and seem interested in us and our problems
Listening to the teachers then role‐playing what was taught
Learning to let the child express their own ideas and imagination skills
My goal was to be on the same parenting page as the child’s parents – this program helped!
Spending time with my wife and children
The sharing, eye contact with child, listening, all in all, all of the classes were very helpful
Having group sessions with hands on exercises
Using stickers and privileges when I give my child orders
Remembering to build up our piggy bank and my children will improve their behavior
Learning parenting skills
2. What did you like most about the program?
The entire program (9)
Group discussion (7)
Learning different ways to do things (4)
Being with others with the same issues (3)
Learning to use play and time out (2)
Spending more family time together (2)
Hearing feedback (2)
Praise (2)
The appropriateness of the program to the needs I have
Interacting with others
How it has helped my child!
Sticker charts
It helped me be a better mother
Role playing
The classes are held at my child’s school
The therapists – they were cheerful, well‐informed, non‐judgmental and all‐around helpful
3. What did you like least about the program?
The paperwork/homework (2)
That the sessions are finished/classes ended (2)
The video vignettes
The session was too short
That the sessions were held on Monday nights (football)
Having to get up to go to the classes
Sitting for so long
The context was not very helpful
How some parents thought they were better than others
Child Guidance Service
8
4. What part of the program was least helpful to you?
The video vignettes (4)
Praise (3)
Spent too much time on play
5. How could the program have been improved to help you more?
The videos could use captions – sometimes it was hard to hear the parents in the tapes
More role‐play
More time spent on dealing with how to handle certain bad behaviors
Classes later in the day
More handouts
Would love to have a refresher class every few months
6. During the time you were in this program, did you receive any other type of treatment for
yourself or your child?
Yes (3)
In treatment for a past relationship
My child had gone to a therapist for behavioral problems, but we have finished the sessions and my
child is improving
How to deal better with problems (taking deep breaths)
Time out
Potty training
7. At this time, do you feel the need for additional individual or group therapy? Please elaborate.
A reminder meeting would be nice
Yes – to learn more
Possibly – my middle child is having self‐esteem issues
Yes – for my child’s exposure to sexuality from another child
Yes – for our foster child we have sought additional counseling
I feel the need for additional group therapy to learn about bad behavior
For all of us to regroup
For more information or if you have any questions about this report,
please contact the Child Guidance Service at the
Oklahoma State Department of Health at (405) 271‐4477.

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Child Guidance Service
1
Summary of Incredible Years Parent Program – FY 2009
Classes conducted by Child Guidance staff of the Tulsa City‐
County Health Department
Amy Dedering, M.P.H.
Child Guidance Service
2
The Incredible Years Parent Program is a 12 to 16 week evidence‐based program for
parents of children 0 to 8 years of age. The focus of the program is strengthening positive
and nurturing parenting skills, as well as reducing challenging behaviors in children and
increasing their social and self‐control skills.
Classes were conducted by staff from the Child Guidance Clinic in the Tulsa City‐County
Health Department.
PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS
Response – 74 adult participants
Gender # % Relationship to Child # %
Female 55 74% Biological parents 65 88%
Male 19 26% Grandparents 4 5%
Race/Ethnicity Adoptive parents 2 3%
African American 2 3% Step‐parents 2 3%
American Indian 12 16% Parent's partner 1 1%
Hispanic 11 15% Child's Primary Caregiver
White 44 59% Yes 68 92%
Other 5 7% No 6 8%
County of Residence Months (in past year) child lived with participant
Creek 2 3% Twelve 55 81%
Rogers 11 15% Seven 2 3%
Tulsa 52 70% Five 2 3%
Wagoner 9 12% Two 2 3%
None 7 10%
Incredible Years Parent Program Classes
Class Location Class Time # Participants
Boston Avenue Church Fall 2009 10
Card Head Start Fall 2009 12
Card Head Start – Catoosa Spring 2010 14
Catholic Charities Spring 2010 15
Catholic Charities – Spanish class Spring 2010 5
NACT Head Start Fall 2009 11
Skelly Head Start Fall 2009 7
Child Guidance Service
3
Relationship Status # %
Married 44 63% Employment Status # %
Single 10 14% Working full time 18 28%
Separated 5 7% Working part time 13 20%
Living together 4 6% Not working by choice 10 15%
Divorced 4 6% Unable to work 10 15%
Widowed 3 4% Not working but job seeking 8 12%
Educational Level Student 3 5%
Completed 8th grade or less 4 6% Retired 2 3%
Completed 9th, 10th or 11th grade 8 12% In a recovery program 1 2%
High school graduate or GED 16 24%
Completed some college 15 23%
Technical or trade school graduate 12 18%
College graduate ‐ 2 year degree 2 3%
College graduate ‐ 4 year degree 7 11%
Post college graduate 2 3%
Response – 55 households
Household income # % Does child receive Medicaid? # %
Less than $10,000 12 24% Yes 24 44%
$10,001 ‐ $20,000 13 26% No 31 56%
$20,001 ‐ $30,000 9 18% Does child receive WIC?
$30,001 ‐ $40,000 10 20% Yes 35 64%
$40,001 ‐ $50,000 1 2% No 20 36%
$50,001 ‐ $60,000 4 8% Does family receive unemployment?
More than $60,001 1 2% Yes 5 9%
Does caregiver receive TANF? No 50 91%
Yes 2 4% Does family receive housing assistance?
No 53 96% Yes 10 18%
Does caregiver receive food stamps? No 45 82%
Yes 25 45% Does family receive energy assistance?
No 30 55% Yes 1 2%
Does caregiver receive job training assistance? No 54 98%
Yes 0 0% Does family qualify for free/reduced
No 55 100% school meals?
Does family receive social security? Yes 14 25%
Yes 4 7% No 41 75%
No 51 93%
Child Guidance Service
4
Response – 57 children that were the focus of adult participation
Age of child # % Does child have ADHD? # %
2 years or less 10 18% Yes 2 4%
3 years 14 25% No 39 87%
4 years 18 32% Maybe 4 9%
5 years 11 19% Does child have a language delay?
6 to 8 years 2 4% Yes 4 9%
9 years or older 2 4% No 39 87%
Gender of child Maybe 2 4%
Female 28 49% Does child have a learning problem?
Male 29 51% Yes 1 2%
Primary language spoken in household No 41 91%
English 47 82% Maybe 3 7%
Spanish 9 16% Does child have a physical handicap?
Amharic (Ethiopia) 1 2% Yes 0 0%
# of other children in household No 45 100%
No other children 16 30% Does child have a vision or hearing impairment?
1 other child 25 46% Yes 0 0%
2 other children 8 15% No 44 98%
3 other children 4 7% Maybe 1 2%
4 other children 1 2% Does child have an emotional/behavioral problem?
Does child take medications on a regular basis? Yes 6 13%
Yes 4 8% No 28 62%
No 45 92% Maybe 11 24%
RESULTS
Parents were asked to complete the Social Competence Scale for Parents (P‐COMP) and the
Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI‐SF) both before the first class and after the last class. These
were used to measure the effects of treatment.
The P‐COMP is a 12‐item measurement tool that the parent completes to assess a child’s pro‐social
behaviors, communication skills, and self control. Items on the scale state a behavior a child
may display in a social setting, and parents mark responses on how well the statement describes the
child. Responses are coded on a five point Likert scale (0‐Not at all, 1‐A little, 2‐Moderately well, 3‐
Child Guidance Service
5
Well, 4‐Very well). The P‐COMP contains a Pro‐social Communication Skills subscale and an
Emotional Regulation Skills subscale, as well as an overall scale.
The PSI‐SF takes 36 items from the 120 items on the original PSI. Parents are asked to rate
each item on a 5‐point Likert scale (5‐Strongly Agree, 4‐Agree, 3‐Not Sure, 2‐Disagree, and 1‐Strongly
Disagree) in order to assess their parenting stress. As well as an overall score, the PSI‐SF contains the
following subscales: Parental Distress, Parent‐Child Dysfunctional Interaction, and Difficult Child.
For both the P‐COMP and the PSI‐SF, each subscale and the total score were calculated as a
mean of responses. For the P‐COMP, an increase in the mean shows a positive effect, and for the PSI‐SF,
a decrease in the mean shows a positive effect. A paired t‐test of means with a p value of .05 was
calculated to determine statistical significance between pre and post scores. The following table
shows the means, t‐test value and p value for each subscale and the total scale.
P‐COMP – 33 Matched Pairs
Pre Test Mean Post Test Mean t‐test p value
Pro‐social/Communication
Skills
12.94 15.94 ‐3.584 .001
Emotional Regulation Skills 9.21 13.30 ‐5.803 .000
Total Score 22.15 29.24 ‐5.201 .000
PSI‐SF – 24 Matched Pairs
Pre Test Mean Post Test Mean t‐test p value
Parental Distress 29.08 24.71 2.519 .019
Parent‐Child Dysfunctional
Interaction
21.29 19.21 1.251 .224
Difficult Child 32.67 25.63 4.619 .000
Total Stress 83.04 69.54 3.173 .004
For the P‐COMP, all three scales had a statistically significant difference in pre and post
means, showing that after the Incredible Years Parent classes, parent’s believed their child had better
emotional regulation skills as well as pro‐social and communication skills. For the PSI‐SF, two of the
subscales and the total scale had a statistically significant difference in pre and post means, showing
that after the Incredible Years Parent classes, parents felt that their child was not as difficult, and that
their stress levels had decreased. Although there was not a statistically significant difference in
means for the Parent‐Child Dysfunctional Interaction, this may have been due parents feeling their
relationship with their child was a positive one before classes began.
Child Guidance Service
6
SATISFACTION
Satisfaction questionnaires were administered at the end of the Incredible Years Parent
Program. Responses were coded on a 7‐point Likert Scale, with 1 being the lowest and 7 being the
highest score. The table below shows the mean scores for class, parent type and an overall score.
The
Overall
Program
Difficulty of
Teaching
Format
Usefulness of
Teaching
Format
Difficulty of Specific
Parenting
Techniques
Usefulness of
Specific Parenting
Techniques
Boston Avenue
Church
6.2 6.1 5.6 5.8 6.1
CARD Head
Start
6.3 5.8 6.6 5.5 6.5
CARD Head
Start ‐ Catoosa
6.6 6.5 6.6 6.1 6.5
Catholic
Charities
6.2 5.3 5.9 5.6 5.7
Catholic
Charities ‐
Spanish class
6.3 5.3 6.6 4.9 6.1
NACT Head
Start
5.9 5.7 6.2 5.6 6
Skelly Head
Start
6.6 6.6 6.6 6.1 6.6
Moms 6.3 5.8 6.5 5.6 6.2
Dads 6.1 5.3 5.7 5.1 6.1
Grandparents 6.7 6.7 6.5 6.3 6.7
Overall Score 6.3 5.8 6.3 5.6 6.3
Selected Additional Comments from Satisfaction Surveys
1. What part of the program was most helpful to you?
Child led play (5)
Learning creative, descriptive praise (5)
The group discussion (4)
The whole program was helpful/All of it (4)
Time out (3)
How to ignore bad behavior (3)
Sharing experiences with other parents (2)
Having a book to go along with the program (2)
Child Guidance Service
7
The videos and charts
Learning how to make play more developmental for the child
The teachers actually listen and seem interested in us and our problems
Listening to the teachers then role‐playing what was taught
Learning to let the child express their own ideas and imagination skills
My goal was to be on the same parenting page as the child’s parents – this program helped!
Spending time with my wife and children
The sharing, eye contact with child, listening, all in all, all of the classes were very helpful
Having group sessions with hands on exercises
Using stickers and privileges when I give my child orders
Remembering to build up our piggy bank and my children will improve their behavior
Learning parenting skills
2. What did you like most about the program?
The entire program (9)
Group discussion (7)
Learning different ways to do things (4)
Being with others with the same issues (3)
Learning to use play and time out (2)
Spending more family time together (2)
Hearing feedback (2)
Praise (2)
The appropriateness of the program to the needs I have
Interacting with others
How it has helped my child!
Sticker charts
It helped me be a better mother
Role playing
The classes are held at my child’s school
The therapists – they were cheerful, well‐informed, non‐judgmental and all‐around helpful
3. What did you like least about the program?
The paperwork/homework (2)
That the sessions are finished/classes ended (2)
The video vignettes
The session was too short
That the sessions were held on Monday nights (football)
Having to get up to go to the classes
Sitting for so long
The context was not very helpful
How some parents thought they were better than others
Child Guidance Service
8
4. What part of the program was least helpful to you?
The video vignettes (4)
Praise (3)
Spent too much time on play
5. How could the program have been improved to help you more?
The videos could use captions – sometimes it was hard to hear the parents in the tapes
More role‐play
More time spent on dealing with how to handle certain bad behaviors
Classes later in the day
More handouts
Would love to have a refresher class every few months
6. During the time you were in this program, did you receive any other type of treatment for
yourself or your child?
Yes (3)
In treatment for a past relationship
My child had gone to a therapist for behavioral problems, but we have finished the sessions and my
child is improving
How to deal better with problems (taking deep breaths)
Time out
Potty training
7. At this time, do you feel the need for additional individual or group therapy? Please elaborate.
A reminder meeting would be nice
Yes – to learn more
Possibly – my middle child is having self‐esteem issues
Yes – for my child’s exposure to sexuality from another child
Yes – for our foster child we have sought additional counseling
I feel the need for additional group therapy to learn about bad behavior
For all of us to regroup
For more information or if you have any questions about this report,
please contact the Child Guidance Service at the
Oklahoma State Department of Health at (405) 271‐4477.